Are Animals Inteligent?
Date: July 14, 2017
Author: Roberto Barata
Last Update: September 9, 2023.
How to cite: Barata, R. (2017). Are Animals Intelligent?. Human-Animal Science.
The question of whether non-human individuals possess something we might meaningfully call intelligence has long occupied the minds of pet owners, trainers, and behavioral scientists alike. It resists simple answers, partly because the concepts involved carry different meanings depending on who uses them and for what purpose. Before we can evaluate the cognitive capacities of other species with any rigor, we need to establish what we mean by behavior, intelligence, cognition, and related constructs, and examine the interpretive traps that most reliably distort our conclusions.
Defining Key Concepts
Behavior, in its most useful scientific sense, refers to the actions and reactions of an organism in response to internal or external stimuli. The definition is intentionally broad, encompassing everything from reflexive responses to elaborately learned sequences of activity, and that breadth is part of its value.
Intelligence is a more contested term. Within a strictly scientific model, it remains poorly suited to describing the behavioral repertoires of non-human individuals, carrying as it does an implicit reference to general cognitive capacity as observed and measured in humans. Importing the term into ethology without qualification introduces assumptions that the evidence has rarely earned. A more productive approach focuses on specific cognitive abilities, on what an individual can perceive, remember, solve, and communicate, rather than collapsing these capacities into a single evaluative label.
Cognition, as studied in comparative psychology, refers to the internal processes that mediate between stimulus and response, including perception, attention, memory, reasoning, and decision-making. Researchers studying cognition in non-human species tend to work with precise behavioral measures rather than broad characterizations of cleverness, and they distinguish between declarative knowledge, which involves factual or descriptive information about the world, and procedural knowledge, which governs the execution of skills and tasks. The distinction is important because many of the most striking demonstrations of non-human competence involve procedural learning, while attributing declarative knowledge, of knowing that rather than knowing how, requires considerably more deliberate and careful evidence.
Anthropomorphism deserves particular attention here. The tendency to attribute human-like qualities or motivations to other species is deeply ingrained and often operates below conscious awareness. Drawing parallels between human and non-human experience can be genuinely illuminating, but unexamined anthropomorphism produces systematic distortions in how we interpret behavior, leading us to read purpose, intention, or emotional complexity into patterns that may have far simpler explanations.
A Scientific Perspective
Evaluating the cognitive capacities of non-human individuals scientifically requires grounding the analysis in evolutionary biology, because intelligence in the biological sense is best understood as a set of adaptive capacities influenced by natural selection over long periods of time. From this perspective, the relevant question shifts away from whether a given species is smart in some absolute sense and toward what cognitive tools have proven useful for survival and reproduction in the environments that species has historically inhabited.
The diversity of cognitive adaptations across taxa is genuinely remarkable. Corvids, including crows, ravens, and jays, have been shown to use tools, plan for future states, and demonstrate behavior consistent with an understanding of cause-and-effect relationships (Emery and Clayton, 2004). Scrub jays exhibit what researchers have described as episodic-like memory, recalling not only what they cached and where, but apparently under what circumstances, a capacity once considered a hallmark of human cognition (Clayton and Dickinson, 1998). Dolphins display sophisticated communicative and problem-solving behavior, and the great apes, particularly chimpanzees and bonobos, exhibit social learning and cultural transmission at a level that continues to complicate older assumptions about what distinguishes human cognition from that of other primates (de Waal, 2016).
Comparative psychology, the systematic study of cognitive abilities across species, has been the primary methodological framework for this work. By examining what different species can and cannot do under controlled conditions, researchers gain insight into the adaptive value of various cognitive strategies and the degree to which similar solutions have evolved independently in distantly related lineages. Convergent cognitive evolution, the independent appearance of comparable abilities in species that share no recent common ancestor, has become one of the more theoretically productive areas of the field (Shettleworth, 2010).
Technology has extended what researchers can observe and measure. GPS tracking, portable neuroimaging, and increasingly sophisticated behavioral monitoring have made it possible to study cognition in settings closer to natural conditions, reducing some of the interpretive limitations produced by purely laboratory-based paradigms. The result has been a richer and more ecologically grounded picture of how individuals of different species process information and respond to their environments.
Ethical considerations run through all of this work. How we characterize the cognitive capacities of other species carries direct implications for how we treat them, in research settings, in captivity, and in the wild. Recognition of cognitive complexity in non-human individuals has driven meaningful shifts in welfare standards and continues to inform ongoing debate about the moral status of species whose inner lives remain, in important ways, inaccessible to us.
Conclusion
Decades of research across navigation, problem-solving, social interaction, deception, communication, and abstract reasoning have built a substantial body of evidence for sophisticated cognitive processing in a wide range of non-human species. These findings have required researchers to postulate internal representational states to account for observed behavior, though the precise nature of those states and what they reveal about subjective experience remain actively contested. The question of whether other individuals think, in any sense that meaningfully overlaps with how we use that word for ourselves, continues to drive productive scientific inquiry, and it demands of us both precision in our definitions and genuine intellectual humility in our conclusions.
Multimedia
Articles
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283864004_Intelligence_in_Nonprimates
References & Suggested Reading
Clayton, N. S., and Dickinson, A. (1998). Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature, 395, 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1038/26216
de Waal, F. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? W. W. Norton.
Emery, N. J., and Clayton, N. S. (2004). The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science, 306(5703), 1903–1907. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098410
Marino, L. (2002). Convergence of complex cognitive abilities in cetaceans and primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 59(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000063731
Pepperberg, I. M. (1999). The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey Parrots. Harvard University Press.
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Suddendorf, T., and Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975
